How gaming’s demographics reverted to 2005

New survey wording more accurately reflects changing game market.

The Entertainment Software Association's annual "Essential Facts" briefing on the state of the US video game market is considered one of the most reliable and comprehensive looks at who is actually playing games in this country. And for years, that survey has been showing video games consistently growing away from their outdated, "just for kids" image.

The 2011 report (PDF), for instance, showed the average US gamer was 37 years old, with only 18 percent of gamers coming in at under 18. That's a distinct change from the 2005 report [PDF], which showed an average gamer age of 30 and counted a full 35 percent of gamers as minors. The changing numbers gave the distinct impression that the game industry was succeeding in broadening its audience across all age demographics, and holding on to dedicated consumers that grew up with video games as they continued to age.

So it was a bit shocking to notice (as Twitter user Superannuation did recently) that the ESA's 2012 report (PDF) essentially eliminates seven years worth of market-broadening progress for the industry. The gaming demographics of 2012 look incredibly similar to those of 2005, with an average gaming age of 30, and a full 32 percent of the gaming public being made up of minors.

What happened to that much broader gaming market reported in 2011? Did a lot of older folks suddenly stop playing games in the last year? Did a bunch of kids finally convince their parents to buy them the Wii they've been asking for since 2006? Actually, the seemingly abrupt change in the numbers is the result of a change in methodology that makes the 2012 numbers much more reflective of reality than those that came in recent years.

Getting data that's "more fully reflective"

Up through 2011, the ESA screened out the non-gamers from its annual questionnaire by asking each respondent, "Do you have a video game console in your home or do you have a PC that's used primarily to run video games." In 2012, that screening question was expanded to also include play on "a dedicated handheld system (like a PSP, etc.), a wireless device/tablet (e.g., iPad) or a phone used to play games." Anyone that played games across any of those devices for at least an hour a week was considered a "gamer" for the survey, while those that played at least ten hours were labeled "serious" gamers (even if they were just playing Words With Friends for those ten hours).

The expanded universe of "gamers" captured by the newly worded question creates "survey data that is more fully reflective of everyone who is playing games at this point," ESA Vice President Dan Hewitt told Ars Technica. It's also data that paints a very different picture of the overall game market than the one we thought we knew in recent years.

The average person actually buying games in the US, for instance, is a 35-year-old in 2012, not the 41-year-old described under 2011's outdated wording. The expanded gaming universe is also a little closer to gender parity; only 53 percent male in 2012, compared to the 58 percent reported in 2011 (2005's audience was reportedly 55 percent male). In fact, women aged 30 and older now represent a significantly larger portion of the total population of US gamers than boys 17 and younger (no word on how that comparison shakes out when spending or average hours played are taken into account, though).

Though the impact of phone and tablet games was being felt in the industry well before 2012, Hewitt says the new wording doesn't invalidate the surveys that came in recent years. "I think [the old surveys are] an accurate assessment of what we said they were an assessment of, and it's important not to overstate what was previously being surveyed," he said. "The information before is still true and is still valid."

More than anything, though, the abrupt change in the data shows that the supposed broadening of the US game market has been a somewhat illusory phenomenon. Rather than the persistent demographic shift we thought we were seeing over the last seven years, what we've actually been monitoring was more of a generational platform shift, where the traditional PC and console game market continues to age while younger players gravitate towards smartphones, tablets and portable systems. Call it the Angry Birds effect.

And you can only ignore that effect for so long before your data reaches a breaking point, as Hewitt acknowledged. "At some point you can kind of see a situation when the market changes and the way people play games change," he said. "At some point you're going to have to change your survey instrument and have a year like we have now… to ensure that your survey and the statistics that stem from that survey maintain their relevance, so that's what we're doing right now."

Wise words for anyone who still thinks they can safely ignore the effects that mobile and portable gaming are having on the market.

The problem with the word 'gamer' is that its meaning changes quite drastically depending on context, but everyone pretends that it's always the same thing.

For example: a 40-year old woman who only plays Angry Birds once a week for an hour is a 'gamer', by the ESA's incredibly broad definition. But when discussing, say, 'gamer culture', would anyone include her? No, because then we would be talking about people who self-identify as gamers, those for whom gaming is a major hobby or source of entertainment, not something that is merely incidental.

The old stereotypes of gamers are sticky for a good reason: the broadened market of people who play games now include those for whom gaming could be easily replaced by a half-dozen other hobbies. People who only play FarmVille or Angry Birds don't go to PAX, they don't listen to game soundtracks for fun, they don't argue loudly on the internet about their favorite and most hated games. These people are not even 'casual' gamers; to apply the term 'gamer' here would be akin to calling a person who plays basketball once every other week an 'athlete'. I don't mean this as an insult, I just would like terms to be clear rather than ambiguous.

My point in explaining this is that you often hear statistics and reports on statistics that go like this: "Women are now ~50% of gamers! So why oh why don't hardcore AAA murderfest developers make more games aimed at women??? Clearly they are out of touch!" Gee, maybe because while they're 50% of people who play games, they're not 50% of the demographic that buys a specific type of game? 'People who play games' isn't a simple bloc. There are widely varying tastes, attitudes, and habits within that demographic, and it'd be good if games journalists stopped pretending otherwise.

The problem with the word 'gamer' is that its meaning changes quite drastically depending on context, but everyone pretends that it's always the same thing.

For example: a 40-year old woman who only plays Angry Birds once a week for an hour is a 'gamer', by the ESA's incredibly broad definition. But when discussing, say, 'gamer culture', would anyone include her? No, because then we would be talking about people who self-identify as gamers, those for whom gaming is a major hobby or source of entertainment, not something that is merely incidental.

The old stereotypes of gamers are sticky for a good reason: the broadened market of people who play games now include those for whom gaming could be easily replaced by a half-dozen other hobbies. People who only play FarmVille or Angry Birds don't go to PAX, they don't listen to game soundtracks for fun, they don't argue loudly on the internet about their favorite and most hated games. These people are not even 'casual' gamers; to apply the term 'gamer' here would be akin to calling a person who plays basketball once every other week an 'athlete'. I don't mean this as an insult, I just would like terms to be clear rather than ambiguous.

My point in explaining this is that you often hear statistics and reports on statistics that go like this: "Women are now ~50% of gamers! So why of why don't hardcore AAA murderfest developers make more games aimed at women???" Hmm, maybe because while they're 50% of people who play games, they're not 50% of the demographic that buys a specific type of game? 'People who play games' isn't a simple bloc. There are widely varying tastes, attitudes, and habits within that demographic, and it'd be good if games journalists stopped pretending otherwise.

I was going to say something, but you put all that I wanted to say in your post. Thank you sir.

The expanded gaming universe is also a little closer to gender parity; only 53 percent male in 2012, compared to the 58 percent reported in 2011 (2005's audience was reportedly 55 percent male). In fact, women aged 30 and older now represent a significantly larger portion of the total population of US gamers than boys 17 and younger (no word on how that comparison shakes out when spending or average hours played are taken into account, though).

So there's another little factoid to render ignorant stereotypical thought irrelevant. I've gotten sick of fielding criticisms from self-ascribed non-gamers who appointed me to be an industry spokesperson, no less, about video games being exclusively created for testosterone-hormone-active teenage boys.

I would love to see some more in-depth cross correlation between gamers and the direct industry impact. i.e., while there is gender parity, is there gender parity when it comes to time played and revenue? Likewise, who is spending the money? Are they even gamers, or just buying for their family members who are?

This is a good start though, and some intriguing information. It does come across as much more of an appropriate industry adjustment to accept for scale, but I'd love to drill down into some of the nitty gritty.

(The full report does have some tiny hints of purchasing age, though it's not quite as detailed as I'd like.)

I must say, the awareness of ESRB ratings by parents did catch me off guard Impressive that so many are familiar with it, and it's so universally appreciated)

If this survey was done in 2000, everyone currently listed as a gamer for playing Angry Birds for an hour a week would be listed as one for playing Solitaire. The "casual" game phenomenon is not new and doesn't represent a new revenue stream.

So there's another little factoid to render ignorant stereotypical thought irrelevant. I've gotten sick of fielding criticisms from self-ascribed non-gamers who appointed me to be an industry spokesperson, no less, about video games being exclusively created for testosterone-hormone-active teenage boys.

This is kind of true though if you look at the most prominent games. In general, the more "hardcore" the game, the more it skews towards the old stereotypes. Just look at the games that are highlighted during the major E3 presentations; most of these are not games that will appeal to many women.

So there's another little factoid to render ignorant stereotypical thought irrelevant. I've gotten sick of fielding criticisms from self-ascribed non-gamers who appointed me to be an industry spokesperson, no less, about video games being exclusively created for testosterone-hormone-active teenage boys.

This is kind of true though if you look at the most prominent games. In general, the more "hardcore" the game, the more it skews towards the old stereotypes. Just look at the games that are highlighted during the major E3 presentations; most of these are not games that will appeal to many women.

That's not because of any stereotype about gamers, it is because the people who are making the games want to make games how they want to, and they sell because those more male sided games are what sells, while females are usually part of the Sims, Facebook social game, Angry Bird mobile crowd rather than Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty, Mario game crowd. Sure, some females play all of those games, but there is nothing to stop them from playing more of them, just like WoW has many females now, so do games like Team Fortress 2, which both games cater more toward the male side.

Fantasy and science fiction seem to always be more male sided, with things like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings and Dune and more being always male sided, while the females keep to their Twilight, 50 Shades of Grey, or otherwise more romance genres. The problem is what people want and what games will sell to people for the most money, not what the game itself is about or which gender wants it.

So there's another little factoid to render ignorant stereotypical thought irrelevant. I've gotten sick of fielding criticisms from self-ascribed non-gamers who appointed me to be an industry spokesperson, no less, about video games being exclusively created for testosterone-hormone-active teenage boys.

This is kind of true though if you look at the most prominent games. In general, the more "hardcore" the game, the more it skews towards the old stereotypes. Just look at the games that are highlighted during the major E3 presentations; most of these are not games that will appeal to many women.

That's not because of any stereotype about gamers, it is because the people who are making the games want to make games how they want to, and they sell because those more male sided games are what sells, while females are usually part of the Sims, Facebook social game, Angry Bird mobile crowd rather than Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty, Mario game crowd. Sure, some females play all of those games, but there is nothing to stop them from playing more of them, just like WoW has many females now, so do games like Team Fortress 2, which both games cater more toward the male side.

Fantasy and science fiction seem to always be more male sided, with things like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings and Dune and more being always male sided, while the females keep to their Twilight, 50 Shades of Grey, or otherwise more romance genres. The problem is what people want and what games will sell to people for the most money, not what the game itself is about or which gender wants it.

I think you're partially right, but I also think it's more because the male-oriented genres just lend themselves better to huge blockbusters.

These numbers make a lot more sense. Last years always seemed funny to me, as there's just no way there are enough gamers on the far side of 37 to balance the number of gamers under 37 and make that the average. I can believe 30.

If this survey was done in 2000, everyone currently listed as a gamer for playing Angry Birds for an hour a week would be listed as one for playing Solitaire. The "casual" game phenomenon is not new and doesn't represent a new revenue stream.

I understand the sentiment behind this, but I think a large distinction is not necessarily in the fact that people play casual time-wasters but rather that there's a lot of money and resources into activities that are specifically about games. Angry Birds was nothing until it became a game. Now it's a media phenomenon. You weren't able to get the same kind of cash flow on Solitaire, for example, which was a public-domain game and given away for free.

Also, as for the "gaming culture", yes, "casuals" have been invading your space for years. Sure, you might have more epic phat lootz, APMs, and frags than those other "gamers" but it doesn't invalidate the fact that games have moved from this elusive and elite hobby to something that many people do for fun and don't give a second thought about. People I would not have imagined game, ever, now talk about how they like "Assassin's Creed" or enjoy "Skyrim on Steam" or whatever. It's not just Angry Birds and it's not just card games.

If this survey was done in 2000, everyone currently listed as a gamer for playing Angry Birds for an hour a week would be listed as one for playing Solitaire. The "casual" game phenomenon is not new and doesn't represent a new revenue stream.

I understand the sentiment behind this, but I think a large distinction is not necessarily in the fact that people play casual time-wasters but rather that there's a lot of money and resources into activities that are specifically about games. Angry Birds was nothing until it became a game. Now it's a media phenomenon. You weren't able to get the same kind of cash flow on Solitaire, for example, which was a public-domain game and given away for free.

Also, as for the "gaming culture", yes, "casuals" have been invading your space for years. Sure, you might have more epic phat lootz, APMs, and frags than those other "gamers" but it doesn't invalidate the fact that games have moved from this elusive and elite hobby to something that many people do for fun and don't give a second thought about. People I would not have imagined game, ever, now talk about how they like "Assassin's Creed" or enjoy "Skyrim on Steam" or whatever. It's not just Angry Birds and it's not just card games.

It really isn't any more casual than it has ever been, cause I know many people were playing all the games we call casual now, like Goldeneye and Smash Bros and Final Fantasy on the N64 and PS1 in the 90s. The gaming culture was growing and still is, but the push toward mobile is far more casual than anything handheld or console has ever been.

Okay, so, the ESA's definition of "gamer" just became pretty much useless to me and other actual "gamers."

Redefinition of terms is not necessarily "more accurately reflective" of the gaming market - here, instead, it's just a uselessly overbroad expansion of what "gaming market" means.

To wade into the waters of metaphor, this is like publishing an annual survey of what "readers" like and suddenly expanding that demographic to include people "reading" Facebook, People magazine and Us Weekly. That is, not reflective of "readers" as the relevant population understands the term.

Just because the ESA now believes Farmville and Words With Friends are "games" doesn't mean "gamers" believe that.

I wonder what percentage of respondents is in the "Frustrated Gamer" category. They would be defined as old and employed enough to buy any game that looks interesting but with little to no time to play the games no matter how much fun they are. </selfPity>

The problem with the word 'gamer' is that its meaning changes quite drastically depending on context, but everyone pretends that it's always the same thing.

For example: a 40-year old woman who only plays Angry Birds once a week for an hour is a 'gamer', by the ESA's incredibly broad definition. But when discussing, say, 'gamer culture', would anyone include her? No, because then we would be talking about people who self-identify as gamers, those for whom gaming is a major hobby or source of entertainment, not something that is merely incidental.

The old stereotypes of gamers are sticky for a good reason: the broadened market of people who play games now include those for whom gaming could be easily replaced by a half-dozen other hobbies. People who only play FarmVille or Angry Birds don't go to PAX, they don't listen to game soundtracks for fun, they don't argue loudly on the internet about their favorite and most hated games. These people are not even 'casual' gamers; to apply the term 'gamer' here would be akin to calling a person who plays basketball once every other week an 'athlete'. I don't mean this as an insult, I just would like terms to be clear rather than ambiguous.

My point in explaining this is that you often hear statistics and reports on statistics that go like this: "Women are now ~50% of gamers! So why oh why don't hardcore AAA murderfest developers make more games aimed at women??? Clearly they are out of touch!" Gee, maybe because while they're 50% of people who play games, they're not 50% of the demographic that buys a specific type of game? 'People who play games' isn't a simple bloc. There are widely varying tastes, attitudes, and habits within that demographic, and it'd be good if games journalists stopped pretending otherwise.

It really isn't any more casual than it has ever been, cause I know many people were playing all the games we call casual now, like Goldeneye and Smash Bros and Final Fantasy on the N64 and PS1 in the 90s. The gaming culture was growing and still is, but the push toward mobile is far more casual than anything handheld or console has ever been.

Final Fantasy is casual now? Even in the 90s, they required a serious time investment that games like Goldeneye and Smash Bros didn't. I agree with your point as a whole, but that particular example struck me as especially "un-casual".

It really isn't any more casual than it has ever been, cause I know many people were playing all the games we call casual now, like Goldeneye and Smash Bros and Final Fantasy on the N64 and PS1 in the 90s. The gaming culture was growing and still is, but the push toward mobile is far more casual than anything handheld or console has ever been.

Final Fantasy is casual now? Even in the 90s, they required a serious time investment that games like Goldeneye and Smash Bros didn't. I agree with your point as a whole, but that particular example struck me as especially "un-casual".

Final Fantasy isn't really harcore for playing one single game. Playing many of them might be, but not one of them alone. And time investment does not equate to casual or hardcore, it just means you beat a game. Now, beating a game that is 30+ hours in is gamer level, but not just beating a game.

I wonder how many people fail to meet the requirement of a dedicated gaming box? Surely there are folks who don't own a console, have a computer and/or smarthphone primarily for work/school/personal stuff, but also do WoW or whatever for hours a day.

p through 2011, the ESA screened out the non-gamers from its annual questionnaire by asking each respondent, "Do you have a video game console in your home or do you have a PC that's used primarily to run video games."

That was a fairly poor definition they used back then. Even while owning a gaming quality PC, it would be capable for it not to count if it's primary use wasn't for gaming? The machine I bought for work/research is plenty capable of playing games, so I see no reason to own another...

It really isn't any more casual than it has ever been, cause I know many people were playing all the games we call casual now, like Goldeneye and Smash Bros and Final Fantasy on the N64 and PS1 in the 90s. The gaming culture was growing and still is, but the push toward mobile is far more casual than anything handheld or console has ever been.

Final Fantasy is casual now? Even in the 90s, they required a serious time investment that games like Goldeneye and Smash Bros didn't. I agree with your point as a whole, but that particular example struck me as especially "un-casual".

Final Fantasy isn't really harcore for playing one single game. Playing many of them might be, but not one of them alone. And time investment does not equate to casual or hardcore, it just means you beat a game. Now, beating a game that is 30+ hours in is gamer level, but not just beating a game.

Bullshit. The problem with your statement is you assume someone who will take the time to make their way through a FF game would only play that game and no others. That's pretty ridiculous. I can probably count on one hand the number of people who have played only one FF game. It's about as hardcore a game as you can get. It takes time, commitment, and a pretty fair share of nerdiness to really get into the story and feel for the characters. Those same people are the Otakus who cosplay at conventions or buy the FF orchestral soundtracks or have lithographs on their wall, etc..

Now, people who watched that shit fest that was the FF movie and then got a hair up their ass to try a game out would be considered casuals if they didn't go beyond that. I'm sure there were quite a few that did but by and large playing a game like FF almost precludes you from being labeled a casual gamer. You're a gaming nerd, through and through.

If this survey was done in 2000, everyone currently listed as a gamer for playing Angry Birds for an hour a week would be listed as one for playing Solitaire. The "casual" game phenomenon is not new and doesn't represent a new revenue stream.

Agree. All they are doing now is counting people who play Minesweeper as gamers.

There's always been a huge quantity of folks playing time wasters. Now they just do them on their phones and tablets. The games aren't any deeper, they just have better sound and gfx.

People who only play FarmVille or Angry Birds don't go to PAX, they don't listen to game soundtracks for fun, they don't argue loudly on the internet about their favorite and most hated games.

With the possible exception of PAX, I don't want to do any of those things, and I'm a gamer. These are parts of gamer culture, not part of the definition of gamer. What you just described is an extreme game obsessive.

You don't have to be a gamer to argue loudly on the internet about your personal opinion on a topic, but you do have to be an asshole.

People who only play FarmVille or Angry Birds don't go to PAX, they don't listen to game soundtracks for fun, they don't argue loudly on the internet about their favorite and most hated games.

With the possible exception of PAX, I don't want to do any of those things, and I'm a gamer. These are parts of gamer culture, not part of the definition of gamer. What you just described is an extreme game obsessive.

You don't have to be a gamer to argue loudly on the internet about your personal opinion on a topic, but you do have to be an asshole.

the ESA screened out the non-gamers from its annual questionnaire by asking each respondent, "Do you have a video game console in your home or do you have a PC that's used primarily to run video games."

So I'm not a gamer, then? Funny, I'm pretty sure I spent the whole weekend playing through an entire game of Civilization Gods and Kings. Seriously, that is a VERY poorly worded question. PC gamers who use their PC for things other than gaming will answer "no", since their PC is not "primarily" for gaming. That will of course skew the results towards YOUNGER mean age, since younger gamers tend to use consoles more.

Quote:

In 2012, that screening question was expanded

"Expanded"? The survey is still broken then?

For a moment I was wondering how an obviously broken result could be so widely reported. Then I noticed that it was from an industry lobby group, and that the "report" looks like a glossy marketing brochure with absolutely no information on methodology (and very little text for that matter) ...and it all started to make sense.

Oh I've been that asshole too. We're all assholes when we argue loudly online about subjective topics.

Maybe you put more emphasis on the swear word than I do. My emphasis was more on the ridiculousness of arguing loudly online about something as subjective as what your most or least favorite game is. It's so ridiculous that we all look like assholes when we do it.

Oh I've been that asshole too. We're all assholes when we argue loudly online about subjective topics.

Maybe you put more emphasis on the swear word than I do. My emphasis was more on the ridiculousness of arguing loudly online about something as subjective as what your most or least favorite game is. It's so ridiculous that we all look like assholes when we do it.

"At some point you're going to have to change your survey instrument and have a year like we have now."

Unless, of course, you write your survey question properly in the first place, without reference to specific historical-era-linked forms of technology. But of course, they didn't even try to do that, did they? So this statement should instead have been, 'At some point if you write a harebrained survey with no foresight whatsoever, you're going to have to change your survey... etc.'

Frankly, if you're over the age of 30ish and you don't know what DWANGO was, you're not a gamer.

So at the age of 36, just because I have the honour of being born in England, and did all my early gaming from the age of 9 or 10 on Amstrad and Amiga, sank countless hours into a launch-day PS2 (which still lives, what a workhorse!), and easily spend 10 hours a week on PC gaming now, I'm not a gamer because I'd never heard of a US/Canada-based gaming service that I could never have accessed, and that died the same year as I got my first PC?

The problem with the word 'gamer' is that its meaning changes quite drastically depending on context, but everyone pretends that it's always the same thing.

For example: a 40-year old woman who only plays Angry Birds once a week for an hour is a 'gamer', by the ESA's incredibly broad definition. But when discussing, say, 'gamer culture', would anyone include her? No, because then we would be talking about people who self-identify as gamers, those for whom gaming is a major hobby or source of entertainment, not something that is merely incidental.

The old stereotypes of gamers are sticky for a good reason: the broadened market of people who play games now include those for whom gaming could be easily replaced by a half-dozen other hobbies. People who only play FarmVille or Angry Birds don't go to PAX, they don't listen to game soundtracks for fun, they don't argue loudly on the internet about their favorite and most hated games. These people are not even 'casual' gamers; to apply the term 'gamer' here would be akin to calling a person who plays basketball once every other week an 'athlete'. I don't mean this as an insult, I just would like terms to be clear rather than ambiguous.

My point in explaining this is that you often hear statistics and reports on statistics that go like this: "Women are now ~50% of gamers! So why oh why don't hardcore AAA murderfest developers make more games aimed at women??? Clearly they are out of touch!" Gee, maybe because while they're 50% of people who play games, they're not 50% of the demographic that buys a specific type of game? 'People who play games' isn't a simple bloc. There are widely varying tastes, attitudes, and habits within that demographic, and it'd be good if games journalists stopped pretending otherwise.

+ 1. I think this whole thing is pointless. Games are just entertainment. Why do they need to report of it. It is like saying people watching movies every week vs every month are movies goers. While people who watch movies once a year are not. Same logic can apply to music listeners. I don't think we need a industrial standard to measure who is true gamer or not.

The average gamer age of 30 in 2005 is now 37 in 2012... Aren't they just the same generation who simply age?

Exactly. While most of the comments here are complaining that the new "definition" of gamer is including people who aren't "true gamers," the real finding here is that the old definition of gamers, our "true gamers," represents a specific generation of consumers that is not growing, just aging. Given that the market for these sorts of surveys (and the mode detailed demographic data they can provide) are the developers of entertainment software, whether Farmville or Call of Duty, it makes sense to try and include the entire market of consumers of this software, not just the subset of people who grew up with contemporaneously with the NES. You have to accept that there now exists a younger generation of game players who player different sorts of games in a different sort of way, but they still spend a lot of time and money doing so, and are going to attract the attention of the industry.

One could also view this survey as showing an increasing proportion of young people playing mobile games. If anything the results reinforce the fact that people playing games on consoles or PCs tend to be older.

Kyle Orland / Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in Pittsburgh, PA.